Europe cracks down on illegal immigration

[jay gw]

LONDON : Unskilled foreigners will find it harder to migrate to Britain under new proposals due to be announced. The plans also call for stricter screening of asylum seekers and tighter border controls, the country's interior minister said.

The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has drawn up the five-year blueprint just three months before an expected general election in which immigration will be a major theme.

"We believe that economic migrants are of great value to this country. They provide skills and goods which help us to establish and strengthen our economy, as indeed do students coming into the country," Home Secretary Charles Clarke told BBC television in an interview.

"But we want to ensure that the people who do come into the country are the people who do bring us those benefits," the minister said.

"We will establish a system... which looks at the skills, talents, abilities of people seeking to come and work in this country, and ensures that when they come here they have a job and can contribute to the economy of the country."

About 140,000 people per year move to Britain to work, according to Clarke.

At the same time, he acknowledged that it was "very difficult" to estimate the number of people who enter the country illegally.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/131194/1/.html

By contrast, the United States lets anyone in regardless of job skills or knowledge of English.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
By contrast, the United States lets anyone in regardless of job skills or knowledge of English. Horse hockey. There's a remarkable amount of pick-and-choose INconsistency about how the USA allows workers to move in permanently.

For example, I'm a highly educated person skilled in current computer technology, speak English very well, from an allied country. I would have to wait weeks to months (possibly years) to obtain a work permit for longer than a few weeks (visiting visa), PLUS I would have to be sponsored by a US company, PLUS I may have to show that I'm not displacing a US citizen from any job I did obtain.

And yet I gather from other conservative posters here that the Rio Grande is thick with Mexcians going back and forth into the border US states, without work visas of any sort. In fact, that much of the local economies ride on their backs. Ditto Canadians in the north. (This is a summary of their view, you understand.)

So with respect to the OP, perhaps you might stick to the topic, and not try to draw invalid comparisons.

[Iconoclast]

The thread title is about illegal immigration, but almost everything you referenced from the article was about tough restrictions on legal immigration. WTF?

Originally posted by jay gw
By contrast, the United States lets anyone in regardless of job skills or knowledge of English.
I take it you've never tried to obtain a green card. Excepting the Green Card Lottery, getting into USA these days is very difficult unless you're lucky enough to have some specific, uncommon skillset.

[jay gw]

For example, I'm a highly educated person skilled in current computer technology, speak English very well, from an allied country. I would have to wait weeks to months (possibly years) to obtain a work permit for longer than a few weeks (visiting visa), PLUS I would have to be sponsored by a US company, PLUS I may have to show that I'm not displacing a US citizen from any job I did obtain.

And yet I gather from other conservative posters here that the Rio Grande is thick with Mexcians going back and forth into the border US states, without work visas of any sort. In fact, that much of the local economies ride on their backs. Ditto Canadians in the north. (This is a summary of their view, you understand.)

You just illustrated my point, thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself, that educated workers are kept out of the US and uneducated non English speakers travel freely across the borders, take jobs with or without papers, and the employers aren't punished as according to law they should be.

Again, thanks for putting it so well.

In fact, that much of the local economies ride on their backs.

The border cities of the US/Mexico are now about 90 percent Mexican....no, that's not the Mexican side. It's the American. About 30 years ago it was 60 percent native White, and 40 percent illegal alien Hispanic. I would say that 85 percent of the 'legal' population of 30 million plus Hispanics are descended from an illegal ancestor crossing the border. None of the procedures applying to you have any relevance to them.

Anyone who really wants to emigrate to the United States should do this: buy a plane ticket, book a "holiday" disappear in the city. The end. Nobody sends illegals back, so it doesn't matter how anyone gets inside in the first place. Only an idiot would go through formal procedures like work visas.

A quiz- name one Australian that's ever been deported from America for immigration violations.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that in January of 2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number that is growing by half a million a year. Thus, the illegal-alien population in 2003 stands at at least 8 million. Included in this estimate are approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror.

http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html

[H3LL]

Originally posted by jay gw

A quiz- name one Australian that's ever been deported from America for immigration violations.

First Google hit: Sally Wilson (http://www.immigrationlinks.com/discus/messages/9/360.html?SundaySeptember1920040254pm)

By sally wilson on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:37 pm:

Hello,
I am an Australian citizan and was deported from the USA (Atlanta Aiport) on the 16/17th June.
I previously had a J1 visa (Dec 03-May 04) and in mid April flew from denver to cuba (via mexico) for spanish learning holiday.

I was travelling back to USA to collect winter clothes and ski equipment, travelling for a bit then heading home in early September. The officers didn't believe me and questioned me for about 5 hours as to my intensions entering the USA and didn't believe I had funds to support myself. They called my mother to prove funds and mum she I had enough then they asked if I had had intensions to work back in Aspen, she said I dont know...maybe?

From this they took as yes and read me my writes and that was it.

I had to spend the night in a jail as the next flight to catch was the following day. Could you please provide me with the name of the jail they would have sent me to?

Additionally I asked if I could fly from Atlanta to LA as that was where my return flight to Australia was leaving from but they didn't allow me to travel to LA.....Is that true?

So I was forced to pay US$5090 to get flight home (via Japan)....is there ANY way to get some compensation back from this flight?

One more Q....I would like to appeal this deportation what is the process and who should I begin to contact? (I am in the process of documenting everything now.
thanks, Sally Wilson




Do I win a prize?

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
You just illustrated my point, thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself, that educated workers are kept out of the US and uneducated non English speakers travel freely across the borders, take jobs with or without papers, and the employers aren't punished as according to law they should be.

Again, thanks for putting it so well.

The border cities of the US/Mexico are now about 90 percent Mexican....no, that's not the Mexican side. It's the American. About 30 years ago it was 60 percent native White, and 40 percent illegal alien Hispanic. I would say that 85 percent of the 'legal' population of 30 million plus Hispanics are descended from an illegal ancestor crossing the border. None of the procedures applying to you have any relevance to them.

Anyone who really wants to emigrate to the United States should do this: buy a plane ticket, book a "holiday" disappear in the city. The end. Nobody sends illegals back, so it doesn't matter how anyone gets inside in the first place. Only an idiot would go through formal procedures like work visas.

A quiz- name one Australian that's ever been deported from America for immigration violations.Thanks, H3LL! That one will do! I was about to provide a list of deported Aussies, among whom is one Mamdouh Habib, recent occupant of a cell in Gitmo.
Originally posted by jay gw
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that in January of 2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number that is growing by half a million a year. Thus, the illegal-alien population in 2003 stands at at least 8 million. Included in this estimate are approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror.

http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html Actually, you have contradicted yourself. Your original wording was "...the United States lets anyone in regardless of job skills or knowledge of English." This implies that job and language skills are not evaluated for ANY immigrants, nor their country of origin or racial background.

However we both seem to have agreed that your original statement is indeed an incorrect situational assessment (for whatever the reasons may be). So would you please make up your mind what your argument actually is, if you have one.

Summary I believe you have provided so far: Europe is toughening up guest-worker laws; meanwhile the USA is not applying theirs altogether consistently.

[jay gw]

Actually, you have contradicted yourself. Your original wording was "...the United States lets anyone in regardless of job skills or knowledge of English." This implies that job and language skills are not evaluated for ANY immigrants, nor their country of origin or racial background.

Sorry, what I meant to say that if you're anyone except Latin American immigrants, language and job skills are evaluated.

My mistake.

I was travelling back to USA to collect winter clothes and ski equipment, travelling for a bit then heading home in early September. The officers didn't believe me and questioned me for about 5 hours as to my intensions entering the USA and didn't believe I had funds to support myself.

Oh. So she was at the border trying to get in? That's not the same thing as living in a country. If you don't have the proper papers and want to wander back and forth between countries, you must be stupid or something. Sorry to be rude, but I would never do that, so I can't comment.

The enforcement of labor laws is what I'm focusing on, not border laws. Anybody dumb enough to travel between countries without the right papers is just asking for trouble. Once you're inside the US, nobody cares.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by jay gw

Oh. So she was at the border trying to get in? That's not the same thing as living in a country.

I never said it was. I just answered you quiz question.

No prize then?

It would seem that your quiz question was just poorly worded, ambiguous, poorly researched, lacking evidence to support it and clouded in obfuscation like most of the rest of the post.

Why don't you just go with "I don't like Latin Americans" and be done with it and everyone can just concentrate on hurling derision at you for that?

[ZeeGerman]

Not a single brit took offense against GB being equated to "Europe" yet. There's hope then :D

Zee

[H3LL]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Not a single brit took offense against GB being equated to "Europe" yet. There's hope then :D

Zee

Shouldn't it be the other way around. I'm waiting for the other Europeans to take offense at Britain = Europe.

It seems to be OK with the Germans. :D :p

I suspect most people don't bother to wade through the steamed noodles that jay gw considers straight talking.

[geni]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Not a single brit took offense against GB being equated to "Europe" yet. There's hope then :D

Zee


Look at the posting time on the thread. However since most of imigrants seem to come from france it could be argued this is an Eu wide issue.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by geni
Look at the posting time on the thread. ...

Are you reading it as July?

I'm not sure what you mean unless you think we have all time-travelled!?! :D :D

Or do you mean the link maybe 1994?

Edit to add: It goes to a news item for 7th Feb 2005.

Sorry. You have lost me Geni. :(

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by jay gw
"We will establish a system... which looks at the skills, talents, abilities of people seeking to come and work in this country, and ensures that when they come here they have a job and can contribute to the economy of the country."

Now, if only they'd deport those natives who don't meet those standards, as well...

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by H3LL
Are you reading it as July?

I'm not sure what you mean unless you think we have all time-travelled!?! :D :D

Or do you mean the link maybe 1994?

Edit to add: It goes to a news item for 7th Feb 2005.

Sorry. You have lost me Geni. :(
I guess he meant the 11:48 PM. That's 48 minutes after the pubs close in Brittain and everybody is well in bed already.

Zee

[geni]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
I guess he meant the 11:48 PM. That's 48 minutes after the pubs close in Brittain and everybody is well in bed already.

Zee

It was posted on a sunday. So the pubs don't stay open quite so late.

[richardm]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
I guess he meant the 11:48 PM. That's 48 minutes after the pubs close in Brittain

Not for very much longer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241537.stm) :alc:

[H3LL]

Originally posted by geni
It was posted on a sunday. So the pubs don't stay open quite so late.

I'm not in the UK so it shows a different time. Sorry.

[geni]

Originally posted by richardm
Not for very much longer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241537.stm) :alc:

I suspect that the majority of pubs will not change their hours.

[richardm]

I'd be astounded if most of them didn't change their hours. Pub owners are as keen to make money as the next person.

[geni]

Originally posted by richardm
I'd be astounded if most of them didn't change their hours. Pub owners are as keen to make money as the next person.

Longer hours mean that you have to employ staff latter. If you market is students then they will for the most part want to go to clubs by 11 anyway.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
getting into USA these days is very difficult unless you're lucky enough to have some specific, uncommon skillset.
A sham marriage would work too.

[Magyar]

US immigration laws are a joke - I am talking about inforcement once you are in the country - Massachusetts has been trying, and unfortunatly likely to pass a law that will allow
illegal aliens to pay IN-STATE tuition at state colleges.

Just in case you're not familiar with the US state university system. State colleges charge a different rate for students who are residents of a state than those who are coming to the school
from another state. Someplace like MA, that is surrounded by a number of small states like RI, VT NH and CT have a very large number of students coming from these states.

IF you are a resident of Rhode Island, but want to attend a Massachusetts state college you will pay 10-15% higher rates
than a student who resides in MA. This new law will allow
an illegal alien( who by definition is a criminal and does not pay taxes) to attend a state college and thereby take the spot of a US citizen AND pay a lower rate than a US citizen who PAYS taxes coming from a neighboring state.


So not only does INS NOT detain or deport these people, the STATE will actually gives them special treatement ABOVE a law abiding citizen.

[jay gw]

I never said it was. I just answered you quiz question.

You're talking about people without papers trying to get into the United States, or any country for that matter. That's not what I'm bringing up as a problem. It's people already in the country that are the problem.

The Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000).

This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.

FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million).

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1190&c=13

Btw, the budget of California is now $8 billion dollars in deficits. That's why Arnold Schwarzeneggar was elected, because he's a Republican and fiscally conservative. The Democratic governor Gray Davis was thrown out half way into his term. Liberals bankrupting the state finally became too much for the public to tolerate. Alot of the money they were spending was because of their position on the border with third world Mexico, and the illegal aliens from there using public services. They use several billion dollars of services a year, and of course pay no taxes to the state of California (or Nevada, or Texas, or Arizona).

The Australian on the board conveniently forgot to mention that when Australia saw what was happening in the US, they changed their immigration laws and made it much harder to get in. They also started actually investigating illegal alien labor. Smart move. If only America had done that, starting about 20 years ago. It may be too late to do anything about it now.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
The Australian(s) on the board conveniently forgot to mention that when Australia saw what was happening in the US, they changed their immigration laws and made it much harder to get in. They also started actually investigating illegal alien labor. Smart move. If only America had done that, starting about 20 years ago. It may be too late to do anything about it now. The changes were not in response to the US immigration situation, they were in direct response to 9/11. They were aimed at curbing "boat people" refugees being brought in by people-smugglers. The idea was to somehow separate the genuine refugees from any possible "infiltrators of terror" by parking them all in a desert gulag while "their papers were processed". (How this solved the problem, I and many others don't know.)

Also, in the past we had been quite liberal in the situation of "family reunion" immigration. However it got to be abused quite heavily - literally once one person was accepted legally, they brought the rest of their family, then the rest of the extended family, then all sorts of people who were related to them by blood or marriage, etc, etc, until whole villages were arriving en masse. The "crackdown" has been on this practice of extended family immigration, and it has been simply a toughening-up of the existing restrictions. Usually, the majority of immigrants have been legal, and rapidly become integrated and productive members of our society.

Our illegal immigrants tend mostly to be tourists who overstay visitor visas and just "stay forever", not border sneaks. However they also tend to be integrated and productive members of our society, so chucking them out is often traumatic - they are literally being thrown out of their homes!

Is this what you are talking about in Australia?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by jay gw
...
The border cities of the US/Mexico are now about 90 percent Mexican....no, that's not the Mexican side. It's the American. About 30 years ago it was 60 percent native White, and 40 percent illegal alien Hispanic. I would say that 85 percent of the 'legal' population of 30 million plus Hispanics are descended from an illegal ancestor crossing the border. None of the procedures applying to you have any relevance to them.

...

So thirty years ago, there were no blacks, Asians, or Native Americans in the border cities?:D

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Magyar
So not only does INS NOT detain or deport these people, the STATE will actually gives them special treatement ABOVE a law abiding citizen.
You should be happy they still have to pay tuition at all. If they are foreign students from this hemisphere, they can go to any state school tuition-free as part of the Good Neighbor waiver. Unless they don't have that there, but I was under the impression it was country-wide.

[jay gw]

If you want to neatly sum up the government's public approach to immigration - and the difficulties it will have in selling it - start with the title of its new policy document.

"Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain" is a balancing act between the tough stance of the political climate and an attempt to put the case for migration as a positive force.

Confused? Well Home Secretary Charles Clarke thinks you probably are, as he concedes in the introduction. "The system we have at present works well but it is complex and difficult to understand," he writes.

So how is he proposing to simplify all of this and defend Labour's record on a key public issue? First, the headlines: A points-based system for workers - the more skills you have, the more likely the UK will be to allow you in.

Unlike the Conservatives, Labour says it will not introduce quotas but instead says it will tighten up the criteria in other ways.

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM PLAN

New points system for economic migrants
Financial bonds for some migrants
End to automatic right of family settlement
Fines for employers with illegal workers
Skilled workers allowed to stay permanently
Refugees only given temporary leave to stay
More detention of failed asylum seekers
Fingerprinting of all visa applicants
Permanent settlement will be linked to ability to speak English, an extension of former Home Secretary David Blunkett's idea that "active citizenship" means participating fully in society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4245101.stm


And on the American side....

Posted: February 4, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexico is proving to be a more serious national security threat to the United States than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was.

Mexico is authorizing an invasion of our country. It's an invasion designed to change the very character of our country.

That seems to be the point behind Mexico's strategy of casting off its undesirables, dumping them into the United States where we are supposed to care for them and treat them like citizens.

Mexico encourages illegal immigration into the United States as a calculated economic safety valve. We take care of its unemployment problem and much of the money generated by the illegal aliens who enter the United States winds up back in circulation in Mexico. It's quite a racket. You can hardly blame the Mexican government for wanting to keep a good thing going.

It's audacious.

Imagine you're a U.S. citizen entering Mexico illegally. Once there, you demand free medical care and English-speaking nurses and doctors. You also want free education for your child – in English.

You also say you expect classes on American culture in the Mexican school system. You demand the right to vote in Mexican elections and you insist on bilingual ballots. Since, as an English speaker, you find it difficult to find regular work, you sign up for welfare. Next, of course, you demand a Mexican driver's license.

What do you think would become of you as a U.S. citizen if you tried this in Mexico?

That's right. You would wind up in jail, deported or dead.

But, that doesn't stop the Mexican government, at the highest levels, from making such outrageous demands on you.

The Mexican government is demanding you accommodate its citizens – 20 million to 30 million strong – in this fashion.

And there should be no limit to the influx or Mexican illegals, they say. Any attempts to shut off the spigots of appeasement will be met with legal challenges that represent the gravest threats to American sovereignty in international courtrooms.

It shouldn't surprise us, of course, that foreign government officials would try to bleed the American taxpayer in every way possible. It does remain unsettling, however, that so many U.S. government officials stand alongside the Mexican politicians in abusing us, taking advantage of our good nature and not recognizing when the American people have had enough.

Have you had enough?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42713

Tony Blair and Michael Howard know exactly what they're doing. Preserving English security and the economy may make them unpopular with asylum seekers, but it's criticism they're willing to tolerate.

Good things never last. Americans are too good, too generous, too charitable, too "Christian" and they're paying an enormous price for it. In about 30 years, the United States will be a third world country.

[CFLarsen]

jay gw,

Could you - first and foremost - explain how a British proposal means that "Europe cracks down on illegal immigration"?

I live in Europe - Denmark, if you want to nitpick - and I wasn't aware that "Britain" was equivalent to "Europe".

Thing is: I would like to inform the Danish PM that his country has ceased to exist and has become a subject of the British Crown.

I hope you don't mind me asking.

[jay gw]

Thing is: I would like to inform the Danish PM that his country has ceased to exist and has become a subject of the British Crown.

Could you please discuss the issue of this thread, immigration, and stop making stupid comments?

I hope you don't mind me suggesting.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by jay gw
Could you please discuss the issue of this thread, immigration, and stop making stupid comments?

I hope you don't mind me suggesting.

I am sure that this won't come as a shock to you but it appears that I am equally stupid with Claus, so could you please answer his question since I happen to share it?

TIA

Zee and geni: Hilarious dialogue :D It reminded me of the British show " Yes MInister!"

[Number Six]

I don't understand the US immigration policy (as it is enforced) at all. Millions of people breaking the law are ignored or rewarded whereas those that try to get in legally languish. And I've never heard anything even resembling a defense for it. The only answer I can think of is perhaps the border is simply too large to be defensible against illegals so things have to be the way they are but nobody wants to come out and say it for fear of panic.

And it bugs me when people say it's just racism to speak against illegal immigration. Most of the people not being permitted to come to the US to work and live because the country is already flooded with illegal Hispanics are non-white (and non-Hispanic). If there is racism in this issue then it's by people who believe that people from Mexico should automatically be given an advantage over people with darker or yellower skin or people that happen to not live right next door.

If we need lots of people to do menial, low paying jobs that Americans don't want to do then fine, bring them in. But having them flood in with few controls is just crazy during ordinary times, much less during times when terrorists are doing their utomost to wreak havoc.

[shecky]

Originally posted by jay gw
You just illustrated my point, thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself, that educated workers are kept out of the US and uneducated non English speakers travel freely across the borders, take jobs with or without papers, and the employers aren't punished as according to law they should be.


You put your finger on it, yet you seem unable to recognize it. Uneducated non English speakers travel freely across the borders precisely because there's work in the U.S. for them. This is COMPLETELY market driven. Trickle all that down, and you find that they're in the U.S. because the country demands the cheap, flexible labor force they provide. This is wonderful testimony to the strength of the American economy that can absorb so many people and still have unemployment rates in the mid single digits.

Educated workers are a different story. A illegal professional worker in the U.S. may find stiff competition from similarly skilled natives and legal immigrants while offering big liability. As a result, there's huge incentive to emigrate legally. Unless he/she is satisfied with menial employment.

Strict immigration control is a populist issue, but carries little weight among businesses that depend on cheap labor. And businesses traditionally carry more weight with politicians.

[Zep]

jay gw, I read both your reports. They're not exactly speaking the same language, are they. One is a party-political broadcast about UK immigration policies, the other is a popularist rant about Mexicans in particular. Oh well.

However I take it this particulkar immigration situation IS an issue in the USA, or at least there is an issue PERCEIVED by a fair number of people. OK, then, fair enough. Perhaps as a first step it would be an idea to find some reliable data on what the situation actually is, rather than rely on nebulous editorial comments about millions of wetbacks clogging the Rio Grande at the behest of the Mexican government or whatever. I gather this situation certainly HAS been monitored over a long period of time, so are there any hard stats on this at all we can table?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Magyar
US immigration laws are a joke - I am talking about inforcement once you are in the country - Massachusetts has been trying, and unfortunatly likely to pass a law that will allow
illegal aliens to pay IN-STATE tuition at state colleges.


What an odd situation. If you were a legal alien, would you still have to pay out of state tuition? Or what about a US resident from another state.

Bizarre.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't understand the US immigration policy (as it is enforced) at all. Millions of people breaking the law are ignored or rewarded whereas those that try to get in legally languish. And I've never heard anything even resembling a defense for it. The only answer I can think of is perhaps the border is simply too large to be defensible against illegals so things have to be the way they are but nobody wants to come out and say it for fear of panic.

And it bugs me when people say it's just racism to speak against illegal immigration. Most of the people not being permitted to come to the US to work and live because the country is already flooded with illegal Hispanics are non-white (and non-Hispanic). If there is racism in this issue then it's by people who believe that people from Mexico should automatically be given an advantage over people with darker or yellower skin or people that happen to not live right next door.

If we need lots of people to do menial, low paying jobs that Americans don't want to do then fine, bring them in. But having them flood in with few controls is just crazy during ordinary times, much less during times when terrorists are doing their utomost to wreak havoc.

I'm not so sure that Americans are unwilling to do the work, just unwilling to do it for the sort of wages that an illegal immigrant would do them for. I have an uncle who works in a factory and belongs to a union (dying breed) and makes a pretty good living at it. I doubt he would bother with the job if he was making minimum wage with no benefits.

I doubt you will see a big crackdown on illegals though, since so many in the business community make out pretty well with them. Not from the conservatives.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Renfield
What an odd situation. If you were a legal alien, would you still have to pay out of state tuition? Or what about a US resident from another state.
You have to be a resident of the state, usually for one calendar year previous to enrollment, regardless of what citizenship you hold. Residents of other states, or people who haven't lived in-state for the required amount of time pay out-of-state tuition. Living in dorms generally won't give you residency status, but renting an apartment year-round will. Sometimes states will exempt counties in other states that border the state. In Texas, residents of certain counties in New Mexico, Oklahoma, etc can still pay in-state tuition.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sure that this won't come as a shock to you but it appears that I am equally stupid with Claus, so could you please answer his question since I happen to share it?

I'd still like to know, too.

[jay gw]

rather than rely on nebulous editorial comments about millions of wetbacks clogging the Rio Grande at the behest of the Mexican government or whatever.

Is this supposed to be a joke? This is a real problem, not some Internet "story".

If you want to hop on a plane and come take a look around, we'd be more than happy to host you.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Zep
jay gw, I read both your reports. They're not exactly speaking the same language, are they. One is a party-political broadcast about UK immigration policies, the other is a popularist rant about Mexicans in particular. Oh well.

However I take it this particulkar immigration situation IS an issue in the USA, or at least there is an issue PERCEIVED by a fair number of people. OK, then, fair enough. Perhaps as a first step it would be an idea to find some reliable data on what the situation actually is, rather than rely on nebulous editorial comments about millions of wetbacks clogging the Rio Grande at the behest of the Mexican government or whatever. I gather this situation certainly HAS been monitored over a long period of time, so are there any hard stats on this at all we can table?
Good question, Zep, and as I think this is a HUGE issue for the US, I will try to find some. Not sure how easy it will be.

Here is one that I can't find a reference for but which I have reason to believe. Mexico's #1 foreign revenue generator is oil. #2 is wages sent back home to Mexico. It runs in the tens of millions. This is money completely lost to the US economy.

More when I get a chance.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
Is this supposed to be a joke? This is a real problem, not some Internet "story".

If you want to hop on a plane and come take a look around, we'd be more than happy to host you. I'm not denying anything, just taking the skeptical view: A real problem will no doubt be backed up with real data, so let's see that on the table first and get a handle on the problem before we all prognosticate about "solutions".

And even from here, I've heard the whining about this situation for decades (I was aware of it when Cheech and Chong went around the first time). And I've been to LA enough to have seen a few things first-hand. But that doesn't mean I know it all, of course.

And sure! I'd love to come to LA again for a while! (That's the only place planes from Australia land, so I have no choice. :)) You buying the plane tickets??

[jay gw]

By NIC CECIL
Political Correspondent

TENS of thousands of white families are pouring out of UK cities as immigrants move in, a controversial new report claims.

The exodus is creating an increasingly divided society, says the study for independent think-tank Migrationwatch UK.

It found that 600,000 more people left London for the regions between 1993-2002 than arrived in the capital from elsewhere in Britain.

Those moving out were believed to be mainly white. In the same decade, the number of immigrants arriving in London went up by 726,000.

Migrationwatch said there were similar changes in Manchester and Birmingham. Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: “The development of increasingly ‘parallel societies’ in some of our major cities is extremely undesirable.

“Government immigration policy is exacerbating this trend.�

The report follows a study for the Greater London Authority last year which showed the proportion of whites in London fell by almost eight per cent in the 1990s.

Migrationwatch claimed the biggest population movement was from high ethnic minority areas to largely white communities.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005062144,00.html

Oh my. That's pretty much what happens in the United States too. In 1980, New York City was 60-70 percent White. Today, it's 35 percent.

In Europe, the immigrants are Arabs from the Mid East, some Asians and some Africans. In America, they're Latin American, mostly Mexican.

Doesn't matter who's from where, the patterns are all the same.

How very interesting.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SezMe
Good question, Zep, and as I think this is a HUGE issue for the US, I will try to find some. Not sure how easy it will be.

Here is one that I can't find a reference for but which I have reason to believe. Mexico's #1 foreign revenue generator is oil. #2 is wages sent back home to Mexico. It runs in the tens of millions. This is money completely lost to the US economy.

More when I get a chance. This is great, but can I just talk to the last point, please.

Tens of millions? This is not a huge income source/loss at all for either the USA or Mexico. I'm willing to bet that many of the bigger US companies will "offshore" bigger lumps than that once a month simply to avoid taxes (i.e. not pay government income = take it out of the economy). You need to get into the billions range at least to start to see any real effect. Scale issue: The US economy is measured in trillions of dollars, and 10 million is less than 0.001% of that.

So how much of a negative effect might this drain really have on the US economy overall? I suspect it is very little, if any, especially if this "southbound" money is then spent on US goods in Mexican shops! But this doesn't mean this particular issue should not be addressed, just that it may not be the most important one on this table.

Just checking naively: Are you sure you meant millions? Could it be tens of billions going south? That would be a bigger problem indeed...

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
By NIC CECIL
Political Correspondent

TENS of thousands of white families are pouring out of UK cities as immigrants move in, a controversial new report claims.

The exodus is creating an increasingly divided society, says the study for independent think-tank Migrationwatch UK.

It found that 600,000 more people left London for the regions between 1993-2002 than arrived in the capital from elsewhere in Britain.

Those moving out were believed to be mainly white. In the same decade, the number of immigrants arriving in London went up by 726,000.

Migrationwatch said there were similar changes in Manchester and Birmingham. Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: “The development of increasingly ‘parallel societies’ in some of our major cities is extremely undesirable.

“Government immigration policy is exacerbating this trend.�

The report follows a study for the Greater London Authority last year which showed the proportion of whites in London fell by almost eight per cent in the 1990s.

Migrationwatch claimed the biggest population movement was from high ethnic minority areas to largely white communities.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005062144,00.html

Oh my. That's pretty much what happens in the United States too. In 1980, New York City was 60-70 percent White. Today, it's 35 percent.

In Europe, the immigrants are Arabs from the Mid East, some Asians and some Africans. In America, they're Latin American, mostly Mexican.

Doesn't matter who's from where, the patterns are all the same.

How very interesting. Yeah. Interesting that you would trot this out in this situation.

Would you like a line-by-line evaluation of this? Or will I give you the overall summation?

Here's a hint or two:

(1) It's a political report - see the by-line? "Political Correspondent"? So would you be expecting unbiased scientific data to be included without favour? Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

(2) It's from The Sun, a rag of known tub-thumping, right-wing proclivities. They are the types who will rephrase "Jesus Walks On Water!" into "Jesus Cannot Swim!" if Jesus was a unionist. They'll say anything plus a page 3 dolly-bird if it will sell a paper.

So are you expecting unbiased and complete reporting here? Hope not...you aren't going to get it. Read it with a grain, nay a whole big packet, of salt.

[jay gw]

It's a political report - see the by-line? "Political Correspondent"? So would you be expecting unbiased scientific data to be included without favour? Yeah, sure.

(2) It's from The Sun, a rag of known tub-thumping, right-wing proclivities. They are the types who will rephrase "Jesus Walks On Water!" into "Jesus Cannot Swim!" if Jesus was a unionist. They'll say anything plus a page 3 dolly-bird if it will sell a paper.

Did you read anything they're reporting on? The newspaper is reporting news from an immigration organization in England. So in other words, because they have a 'reputation' it means they're lying about the report?

And which newspaper doesn't have a reputation? I can be sure and include it in my daily briefing.

[CFLarsen]

jay gw,

I think you have overlooked this:

Could you - first and foremost - explain how a British proposal means that "Europe cracks down on illegal immigration"?

You've been asked by two people. Do you think you could give an answer?

[Zep]

Originally posted by jay gw
Did you read anything they're reporting on? The newspaper is reporting news from an immigration organization in England. So in other words, because they have a 'reputation' it means they're lying about the report?

And which newspaper doesn't have a reputation? I can be sure and include it in my daily briefing. From the Migration Watch UK website, Front page (note the figures - net 151,000):In 2003 net foreign immigration was about 236,000 while 85,000 British citizens left the UK.National UK statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1039) show a UK population of 59+ million people. So 151,000 people out of 59 million is...0.26% of the total. That's a HUGE and SIGNIFICANT chunk, isn't it. :rolleyes:

Now, back to Migration Watch UK, Who We Are:We are not opposed to immigration that is moderate and managed. At present it is neither. We wish to ensure that the arguments adduced in favour of the current large-scale immigration are thoroughly examined as we believe them to be unsound. We also believe that such massive immigration is contrary to the interests of all sections of our community.
Do you appreciate the term "making a mountain out of a molehill"?

Edited to add: What Claus asked.

[CFLarsen]

Some years back, we had these long-term estimations of what the Danish society would look like in 40-50 years, if the - then - rate of immigration continued.

Only thing is, it is impossible to predict that far ahead in time. Think 40-50 years back in time, and see if you could envision what society would look like today.

Who would have envisioned the fall of the Warsaw Pact? The end of the Cold War? Massive disarmament? How technology has progressed, what amazing discoveries science has made? The Internet and how that has affected us?

Not me, buddy. If you had asked me 15 years ago how IT (it was called EDP in those days) would progress, I would have gone out on a limb and said that PCs would be in about every 3rd Danish home by now. Denmark is today the most IT-covered country in the world, with over 70% of all homes being connected to the Internet - primarily with something as futuristic as broadband.

There is a dirty secret that we need to consider, if we want to continue our current welfare state: We simply don't reproduce fast enough to even maintain the number of taxpayers. While it is impossible to predict the future political landscape, we know that unless the average family doesn't produce - and I use this term with great care - enough offspring, the population will decrease.

We need more taxpayers, and the only way to get them is to get more people.

These scare stories are only meant to create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt. They don't solve any problems, they are there to frighten us into choosing the easy, but untenable solution.

Beware of the politicians who scare you. Vote for those, who promote long-term, tenable goals. Unfortunately, not that many do.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by jay gw
By NIC CECIL
Political Correspondent

TENS of thousands of white families are pouring out of UK cities as immigrants move in, a controversial new report claims.
...
It found that 600,000 more people left London for the regions between 1993-2002 than arrived in the capital from elsewhere in Britain.

Those moving out were believed to be mainly white. In the same decade, the number of immigrants arriving in London went up by 726,000.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

[Magyar]

Originally posted by Renfield
What an odd situation. If you were a legal alien, would you still have to pay out of state tuition? Or what about a US resident from another state.

Bizarre.


YES, Exactly! I am a legal immigrant to the US and when I went to UCSC they varified my residency in the state. I considered going to ULV and I would have had to pay out of state tuition because I lived in CA.

My kids are US citizens living in MA and if they want to go to a school in any other state they would pay out of state tuition which is in some cases as much as 30% more. But if you're an illegal you get to pay instate rate and Kimiko was saying something about a "good Neighbor waiver" that lets illegals go for free?


I think when it's time for my kids to go to college they will sudenly revert to being illegals from my birth nation and go to school for free.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't understand the US immigration policy (as it is enforced) at all. Millions of people breaking the law are ignored or rewarded whereas those that try to get in legally languish. And I've never heard anything even resembling a defense for it. The only answer I can think of is perhaps the border is simply too large to be defensible against illegals so things have to be the way they are but nobody wants to come out and say it for fear of panic.

And it bugs me when people say it's just racism to speak against illegal immigration. Most of the people not being permitted to come to the US to work and live because the country is already flooded with illegal Hispanics are non-white (and non-Hispanic). If there is racism in this issue then it's by people who believe that people from Mexico should automatically be given an advantage over people with darker or yellower skin or people that happen to not live right next door.

If we need lots of people to do menial, low paying jobs that Americans don't want to do then fine, bring them in. But having them flood in with few controls is just crazy during ordinary times, much less during times when terrorists are doing their utomost to wreak havoc.


I will now explain US immegration policy. Listen up.

As you could see from the last election, US voters are divided and entrenched in their positions. National elections are won by a few million votes.

Historically, the Democrats grew their numbers by picking up immigrants at the docks and co-opting them for their votes. The Republicans are not stupid in the slightest and they, as the Dems, see a bunch of new voters in the population of Mexico. Not just them, but their families and other mexicans here.

How does one break the deadlock that we pretty much have? Import voters and administer BJ's to an entire ethnic group.

The talk about national ID cards and "better security" at airports and all of that is simply the story that they are telling to divert attention for the real problems that we have and will grow with our loss of sovreignty. It is about votes and power and that is all.

Interestingly, the implications for our black brothers who are pretty loyal to the dems are pretty sad. They are increasingly marginalized in national politics, the Republicans have largely given up on them and the Dems take them for granted. Once the spanish population is fully in play watch for the whines as no one notices them anymore.

Say what you will about O'Reilly, but that illegal, bog trotten', potatoe eatin' Irish SOB appears to me to be the only person with big national exposure that complains consistantly. This is all yet another reason for term limits.